Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with PCT Rule 11.13(b). Figures 2, 3, and 7 are indicated as sectional views but do not comply with 11.13(b). Cross sections shall be indicated by oblique hatching which should not impede the clear reading of the reference signs and leading lines. Figures 2, 3, and 7 are described as sectional views, where the oblique hatching impedes clear reading and understanding of the claimed invention.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with PCT Rule 11.13(a). Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 as drawn do not comply with 11.13(a). Drawings should be executed in durable, black, sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined, lines and strokes without colorings. Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 fail to incorporate sufficiently dense, dark, and well-defined lines that make it clear as to what is being claimed by the drawings.
Figure 8 is objected to because the figure includes reference characters A1 and A2 that have both underlines and corresponding lead lines. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. See 37 CFR 1.84(q).
The drawings are objected to because figure 7 includes three arrows but fail to provide clear meaning as to what the arrow refers. See MPEP 608.02(r) and red circles on Modified Fig 7-1.
PNG
media_image1.png
288
1056
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “31” has been used to designate a suction fan but refers to two different parts on Figure 7. Please delete the numeral 31 that does not correlate to the end of the exhaust pipe as suggested in Modified Fig 7-2.
PNG
media_image2.png
288
1056
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. Lines 8 through 10 of the abstract recite the purported merits of the application, specifically the abstract states: “The aim of the invention is to … precisely and simultaneously…”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is further objected to because of the following informalities:
On the page numbered “11”, the list of reference numerals includes roman numeral 53, where 53 is indicated to represent “-”. As 53 does not refer to a specific structure, and lacks corresponding structure in the drawings, the reference numeral should be deleted from the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claims 13 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Prong (A) is invoked by the claims reciting the generic placeholder “control unit”.
Prong (B) is satisfied because “control unit” is modified by the language “is provided to control the first and second components”.
Under Prong (C), the corresponding structure provided in the disclosure is “a common control unit is provided to control the two components and the two components may be selectively controlled independently from one another or simultaneously with one another” (Specification paragraph 0023). Therefore, the interpretation of the “control unit” is any device capable of controlling the two components of the infrared radiator, either independently or simultaneously with one another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 4 recite the limitation “wherein insulation is provided” in line 5 of Claim 3 and line 2 of Claim 4, where “insulation” has not been properly introduced into the claims. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5 recites the limitation "has at least one exhaust gas pipe" in line 3, and Claim 6 recites the limitation “the end of the exhaust gas pipe” in line 2. The limitation “the exhaust gas pipe” in Claim 6 has not been properly introduced, because Claim 5 introduces at least one exhaust gas pipe, and Claim 6 refers to the exhaust gas pipe. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the exhaust gas pipe” in line 2. The exhaust gas pipe of Claim 7 has not been properly introduced, where Claim 5 does introduce at least one exhaust gas pipe, Claim 7 does not depend on Claim 5. Additionally, even if Claim 7 was dependent on Claim 5, Claim 7 still has not been properly introduced because the claim recites “the exhaust gas pipe” where Claim 5 recites “at least one exhaust gas pipe”. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 and Claim 17 also recites the limitation “the exhaust gas pipe” in line 8-9 of Claim 16 and in line 1 of Claim 17, where Claim 16 claims “at least one exhaust gas pipe” in line 7. As Claim 16 and 17 claim “the exhaust gas pipe”, where Claim 16 introduces “at least one exhaust gas pipe”, the exhaust gas pipe has not been properly introduced into the claim. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 18 recite the limitation “in at least one direction of the axes (L, Q)” in lines 4 and 5, and Claim 18 in lines 3 and 4, where Claim 1 has previously introduced both a transverse and longitudinal axis. While Claim 1 does recite “L” and “Q” in the claim in the form of (L and Q), patentable weight is not assigned to parenthetical reference numerals. Therefore, the claim limitation “the axes” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 12 recites the claim limitation “the connection” in line 2 of Claim 12. Claim 1 previously introduced a connection for supplying fuel gas, and Claim 12 recites the limitation “the connection is designed for three-phase alternating current”. The connection is indefinite as it is both designed to supply fuel gas or alternating current.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 18 recites the claim limitation “the connection” in line 2 of Claim 12 and line 4 of Claim 18. Claim 1 previously introduced a connection for supplying fuel gas, and Claim 17 introduces “an electrical connection” in line 7. It is unclear if the connection in Claim 18 is referring to the connection for the gas fuel supply or the electrical connection, therefore the claim is indefinite.
Claims 14 and 19 recites the limitation “the infrared radiator” in line 3 of Claim 14 and line 2 of Claim 19. The infrared radiator has not been properly introduced into the claim. Therefore, the claim limitation lacks antecedent basis.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claims 14 and 19 recites the broad recitation “lines for fuel and electrical cable”, and the claim also recites “attaching the lines and the cable” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim initially reads as having at least one fuel line and at least one electrical cable and then narrows to two or more fuel lines and a single electrical cable. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 15 and 20 state a use claim that fail to set forth a practical method steps to achieve the claimed method. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims set forth a use of the device but fails to set forth and steps to achieve the method as claimed. See MPEP 2173.05(q)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uwe (DE-19617718-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Uwe teaches (Figures 2, 3 4, 10, and 11), an infrared radiator (1) for heating buildings and rooms. The radiator includes a reflector (17) with at least two different component which emit IR radiation for heating, the first component being a heating pipe (2) with gas/oil forced burner (15) and metal tube (7), and the second component being electric heating tape (11)). The reflector includes a longitudinal (Figures 3 and 4 show longitudinal axis) and transverse axis (Figures 2, 10 and 11 shows transverse axis) situated at a right angle from one another, where the axes run parallel to the reflector are situated in front of the reflector surface.
Regarding Claim 2, Uwe teaches (Figure 10 and 11) that the first and second components are attached to the infrared radiator independent of one another, where the electric heating tape is separate from the metal tube and heating pipe.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uwe in view of Brice (US-20150204538-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except a separate tube reflector is provided between the reflector and the first or second component, or a separate tube reflector is provided between the reflector and the first or second component, wherein insulation is provided between the reflector and the tube reflector.
Regarding Claim 4, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except insulation being provided between the heating element and the reflector and/or the heating element is mounted on the reflector.
Regarding Claim 5, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except the first component is designed as a dark radiator, with a burner for fuel, and at least one exhaust gas pipe coupled to the burner and designed as a radiant tube.
Regarding Claim 6, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except a suction fan arranged at the end of the exhaust gas pipe so that the exhaust gas pipe connects the burner to the suction fan.
Regarding Claim 7, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except the exhaust gas pipe having at least one linearly-extending section or at least two linearly-extending sections coupled via a connecting tube deflecting the exhaust gas flow, wherein the linearly-extending sections are arranged on the reflector parallel to the longitudinal axis.
Regarding Claim 16, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except a separate tube reflector is provided between the reflector and the first or second component, or a separate tube reflector is provided between the reflector and the first or second component wherein insulation is provided between the reflector and the tube reflector; wherein insulation is provided between the heating element and the reflector, and/or the heating element is mounted on the reflector; wherein the first component is designed as a dark radiator, has a burner for fuel, and has at least one exhaust gas pipe coupled to the burner and designed as a radiant tube; and wherein a suction fan is arranged at the end of the exhaust gas pipe so that the exhaust gas pipe connects the burner to the suction fan.
Brice teaches (Figures 1 through 5) an infrared gas heater that features asymmetric double reflectors over the straight tubes (lower reflectors 28 & 30), where a symmetric reflector is over the asymmetric double reflectors (upper reflector 50) ([0001]). Brice also teaches that the air space between the upper and lower reflectors can insulate the reflector system to reduce convection losses from the lower reflectors while also increasing the temperature around the energy emitter tubes ([0032]). Additionally, Brice teaches that the air space between the reflectors can be filled with a physical insulation material ([Claim 11]). Brice further teaches that the infrared radiator includes a gas heating source (20), that connects to the energy emitting tubes (12 and 14) to exhaust gas through the exhaust opening (48) ([0013] through [0032], [0047] and [0045]). Brice further teaches that a blower can be positioned to either pull or push the exhaust gas through the emitter tubes (12, 14, and 16) ([0051]). The emitter tubes 12 and 14 are straight tubes, connected via the connecting tube 16 (Figure 1).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method of apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Uwe teaches the stationary infrared radiator to heat buildings, with a reflector to reflect the infrared heat generated by the electric and gas component. Brice teaches separate reflectors for the heating tube elements, with insulation in the form of air or an insulation material, that separates the reflectors from the heating component. Brice also teaches the gas burner to heat the heating pipes, which both radiate heat and act as the exhaust pipes for the gas, where the gas is being pulled through by a blower fan positioned at the exhaust pipe exit. Brice further teaches the exhaust pipes are linear and have a connecting tube to connect the linear sections.
An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the additional reflectors, insulation, and gas exhaust burner system and fan with the known infrared heater, and would have understood that this would have yielded predictable results because both references teach heating devices for a building, and all the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the infrared heat as taught by Uwe, to incorporate the additional reflectors and insulation as taught by Brice, to provide an infrared heater that incorporates the teachings of both Uwe and Brice because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uwe in view of Horst (EP-0626539-B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except where the first component is designed as a light radiator, with an incandescent body, and a connection for supplying gas to the incandescent body.
Horst teaches (Figure 1) a gas fueled infrared radiator for heating purposes, where the infrared radiator has an incandescent element (1) and gas outlet nozzle (12) ([Claim 7] and[0018]). Horst further teaches that the air supply duct (3) also feeds into the area of the gas feed, where the gas and air mix together in mixing tube (2), before the mixture ends in the glow grid (13) of the downward facing glow/incandescent element ([0018-0019]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method of apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Uwe teaches the stationary infrared heater device with reflectors and an electric and gas infrared heating device. Horst teaches the light radiator having at least one incandescent body, with a connection that supplies gas to the incandescent body. An artisan of ordinary skill could have incorporated the additional teaching of having a gas connection to supply gas to the incandescent body, and would have understood that this modification would yield predictable results because both references teach room heating devices, and all the elements were known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the infrared heater taught by Uwe, to incorporate the gas supplied to the incandescent body as taught by Horst, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uwe in view of Deng (US-20120145693-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except that the infrared radiator has an electrical connection which is provided to supply and/or control the components.
Regarding Claim 13, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except a common control unit to control the first and second component, where the first and second component are selectively controllable independently or simultaneously with one another.
Deng teaches (Figures 1 through 4) a heater (10) with a hybrid heating apparatus ([0003] and [0026]). Specifically, Deng teaches the heater (10) has a fuel delivery system (11) with an electric heater or heating element (28) ([0036]). Deng also teaches that the heating element can be a heat lamp, and infrared emitter or heater, or an incandescent lamp ([0037]). Deng further teaches that the electric heating element and the fuel delivery system can be used to provide the desired heat, where a feedback system (50) includes a thermostat or sensor that is configured to control both the gas and electric heating element ([0009], [0036], and [0049]). The thermostat feedback is capable of regulating the temperature and is capable of controlling the two different heat sources, turning on one or both systems when needed to adjust or maintain a desired temperature ([0049]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method of apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Uwe teaches the infrared heater device with a reflector for the gas and electric heating component, and Deng teaches a hybrid heater with a control unit electrically connected to the gas and electric heater capable of controlling the gas and electric heating devices independently or simultaneously as to supply the desired temperature. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the known electrically connected control unit to the infrared heater to control the gas and electric heating unit as needed to provide the desired heating temperature, and would have understood that this would have yielded predictable results because both references teach gas and electric heating devices, and all the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the infrared heater taught by Uwe with the control unit mechanism capable of independently or simultaneously controlling the multiple mechanisms of the heater as taught by Deng, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uwe in view of Akio (JP-H0674927-B2).
Regarding Claim 10, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except the reflector being placed on two bulkheads arranged parallel to the transverse axis, where the bulkheads have attachments points for suspending the infrared radiator.
Akio teaches (Figure 4) an infrared heater suspended from the ceiling. Specifically, Akio teaches the supporting members (33 and 34) that have mounting pieces (35 and 36) that extend through the mounting holes (38 and 39) cut into the heat shield reflector (39), and are fixed to the lower surface of the cover (40) ([0001]). The hanging members (42 and 43) are connected to the top surface of the cover, where chains (12 and 13) suspend the heater from the ceiling ([0001]). Akio also teaches that the heater mounted on the ceiling can cover a wide are and evenly heat a room, where heat does not heat accumulating in the ceiling ([0001]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method of apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Uwe teaches the infrared heater with reflector over the gas and electric heating components, and Akio teaches the supporting bulkhead members used to support the reflectors and where the bulkheads are also used to suspend the heater from the ceiling. An ordinarily skilled artisan could have incorporated the additional known bulkhead to support the reflectors as well as suspend the heater from the ceiling, and would have understood that the combination would have yielded predictable results because both references are ceiling suspended heaters, and all the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the infrared heater taught by Uwe, to incorporate the bulkheads that support the reflectors and are used to suspend the heater from the ceiling, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uwe in view of Jerry (WO-8901592-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except at least one electric ceiling light with a light source, connecting to the reflector surface or reflector in at least one direction of the axes (L, Q)
Jerry teaches (Figures 1-4) a hot air unit with an open lower side designed for light. Specifically, Jerry teaches the hot air unit has a housing (11) that contains a light fitting (26), reflector (38), and a mounting plate (21) to increase the rigidity of the housing ([Pg. 2, line 34 – Pg. 3 line 14]). Additionally, the mounting plate has brackets (23 and 24) fixed at either end of the housing for mounting the components of the air unit ([Pg. 3 lines 5 - 14] and Fig 3). Jerry also teaches that a heater (30), infra-red heater (37), and light fitting are parallel to each other, and in a common plane ([Pg. 3, line 35 – Pg. 4 line 9]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method of apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Uwe teaches the infrared radiator with a reflector for the two infrared components, and Jerry teaches a hot air unit for with a separate light source emitting from the heater. Jerry also teaches that the components are connected at the ends by brackets mounted on a mounting plate, where the mounting plate runs the length of the heater providing additional rigidity to the heater. An artisan or ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the known component of mounting the light and reflector to a common bracket on the heating device, thus connecting the two and aligning them in a common plane, and would have understood that this would have yielded predictable results because both references teach infrared heating devices for providing warm hot air, and all the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the infrared heater taught by Uwe, to incorporate the light source connected to the reflector as taught by Jerry, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uwe in view of Thomas (DE-102013009119-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except the connection is designed for the three-phase alternating current and the same number of heating elements and/or light sources are connected to each phase of the connection.
Thomas teaches (Figure 1) a heating system for large buildings, where each burner (6) of the dark radiator units (2A and 2B) are connected to a common three-phase alternating current connection (11) ([0002] and [0030]). The alternating current connection comprises a neutral conductor (N), and current carrying phases (L1, L2, and L3), where the dark radiator units connected to each phase have equal number of burner elements attached to the other phases (see Fig 1 and [0030]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method of apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Uwe teaches the infrared radiator with a reflector for the two infrared components, and Thomas teaches the inclusion of a three-phase alternating current being supplied to the burner units, where the phases have equal number of burner units connected to each of the phases. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated three-phase alternating current to the burner, where the individual groups of burners are connected to separate phases of the three-phase current, where each group consists of the same number of burner units connected to each phase, and would have understood that this would have yielded predictable results because both inventions teach building heating devices, and all the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the infrared heater taught by Uwe, to include a three-phase alternating current where each phase has an even number of heating elements attached, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uwe in view of Vancak (US-20060081238-A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except multiple infrared radiators are in a system, and the fuel lines and electrical cables that are supplied to the radiators are attached via a ceiling device.
Vancak teaches (Figure 1 through 6), radiant tube heater assemblies with a plurality of radiant heaters (75) ([0032]). Vancak also teaches that the gas lines (6) that connect the individual heaters, are housed in beams (37) along with the electrical lines that operate the blower (8) and gas flow regulator (15) of the heater assembly ([0032]). Vancak further teaches that the radiant heaters are supported by the beams and mounted on the underside of the beams (Fig 4 and [0032]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method of apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Uwe teaches the infrared radiator mounted from the ceiling, with a reflector for the two infrared components, and Vancak teaches the multitude of heaters connected together and suspended from the beams. Vancak also teaches that the beams house the gas supply lines and electrical cables for supplying gas and electricity to the heaters. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the infrared heater as taught by Uwe, and combine them into a system comprising multiple radiators, where the fuel lines and electrical cables are housed within a ceiling beam device that also supports the infrared radiator, and would have understood that this would have yielded predictable results because both references teach heating devices, and all the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the infrared heater as taught by Uwe, to incorporate the heater into a system of heaters, where a beam houses all the connecting liens and cables, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uwe in view of Katsuyoshi (JP-H06134040-A) and Lars-Henric (DE-102009051187-A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Uwe teaches all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except where the radiant tube is positioned in a way that absorbs radiation energy from the electric heating elements through absorption, and the mass inertia of the radiant tube is used for equalizing the temporal radiation profile of the infrared radiator in the case of pulse width modulation of the electric heating element.
Katsuyoshi teaches (Figure 1 through 4) an infrared radiation electric heater, where an electric heater is installed inside a metal tube in a parallel direction ([0008]). Katsuyoshi further teaches that the outer surface of the metal tube is coated in a highly absorbent material, with a low absorbency reflector at a predetermined distance running parallel to the tube ([0008]). Katsuyoshi further teaches that the simple structure is efficient and energy-saving as the heater absorbs the electrical energy without heating the air unnecessarily ([0007] and [0008]).
Lars-Henric teaches (Figures 1 through 8) a radiation heating device (20), where an operating controller (32) and power source (38) are connected by line (36) ([0106]). Lars-Henric further teaches a method for creating and maintaining a desired temperature for different rooms and zones in an efficient manner, where country specific standards and voltages can be implemented into the device ([0109] and [0130]). Lars-Henric also teaches that the operating controller delivers different amounts of energy through pulse-width modulation to balance the main voltage supplied to the radiant heating device ([0029] and [0106]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method of apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Uwe teaches the infrared radiator mounted from the ceiling, with a reflector for the two infrared components, Katsuyoshi teaches the radiant tube positioned to absorb the energy from the electric heating element, and Lars-Henric teaches a method of using the radiator, where pulse width modulation is used to balance voltages supplied to the heating device. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the radiant tube being positioned parallel to the heat emitter to absorb radiant energy by using the method of sending pulses to balance the voltages sent to the heat emitting component of the device, and would have understood that the combination would have yielded predictable results because all the references teach heat emitting devices, and all the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the infrared heater as taught by Uwe, to incorporate the method of using the radiant tube to absorb energy as taught by Katsuyoshi, as use pulse modulation to balance voltages and heat emitted by the device, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uwe and Brice in view of Horst, Deng, and Akio.
Regarding Claim 17, Uwe and Brice teach all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except for the first component being a light radiator where the first component has an incandescent body and a connection for supplying fuel gas to the body, along with an electrical connection to control all of the components, and where the reflector is placed on two bulkheads parallel to the transverse axis, where the bulkheads have attachment points for suspending the infrared radiator.
Horst, as previously mentioned, teaches the gas fueled infrared radiator for heating purposes, with an incandescent element and gas outlet nozzle. Horst also teaches the air supply duct that feeds into the area of the gas feed, where the gas and air mix together in mixing tube, before the mixture ends in the glow grid of the downward facing glow/incandescent element.
Deng, as previously mentioned, teaches a heater with a hybrid heating apparatus. Specifically, Deng teaches the fuel delivery system for an electric heater or heating element. Deng also teaches that the heating element can be a heat lamp, and infrared emitter or heater, or an incandescent lamp. Deng further teaches that the electric heating element and the fuel delivery system can be used to provide the desired heat, where a feedback system includes a thermostat or sensor that is configured to control both the gas and electric heating element. The thermostat feedback is capable of regulating the temperature and is capable of controlling the two different heat sources, turning on one or both systems when needed to adjust or maintain a desired temperature.
Akio, as previously mentioned, teaches an infrared heater suspended from the ceiling. Specifically, Akio teaches the supporting members that have mounting pieces that extend through the mounting holes cut into the heat shield reflector, and are fixed to the lower surface of the cover. The hanging members are connected to the top surface of the cover, where chains suspend the heater from the ceiling. Akio also teaches that the heater mounted on the ceiling can cover a wide are and evenly heat a room, where heat does not heat accumulating in the ceiling.
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method of apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Uwe and Brice teach the infrared reflector with separate reflectors for the individual heating components, where insulation separates the heating element and the reflector. Additionally, Uwe and Brice teach a first heating component that includes a burner to light the fuel and has a pair of linear exhaust gas pipes and connecting tube attached to the burner and designed as the radiant tube. Uwe and Brice further teach a suction fan connected at the end of the exhaust pipe to aide in exhausting the gas ignited by the burner. Horst teaches the inclusion of an incandescent body and gas connector to supply as to the incandescent body. Deng teaches the electrical connection that supplies power and controls the operation of all the components, including the gas and electric heating component, where the heating components are selectively and independently controllable from one another. Akio teaches mounting the reflector on a pair of bulkheads that are also used to suspend the infrared radiator from the ceiling. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the linear exhaust pipes, the incandescent body and fuel supply for the incandescent body, an electrical connection that supplies power and controls all the components of the infrared radiator, along with a set of bulkheads for mounting the radiator and supporting the reflector, and would have understood that the combination would have yielded predictable results because all the references teach heat emitting devices, and all the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the infrared radiator taught by Uwe and Brice to incorporate the incandescent burner taught by Horst, the electrical supply and connection taught by Deng, and the support bulkheads taught by Akio, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uwe, Brice, Horst Deng, and Akio, in view of Jerry and Thomas.
Regarding Claim 18, Uwe, Brice, Horst, Deng, and Akio teach all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except a light source connected to the reflector surface or reflector in at last on direction of the axes, where the connection is designed for three-phase alternating current and the same number of heating elements and/or light sources ae connected to each phase of the connection, and where the common control unit provides control for the first and second component, which are selectively controllable independently or simultaneously with one another.
Jerry teaches the hot air unit, with a lower side with an opening designed for light. Jerry also teaches the hot air unit has a housing that contains a light fitting, reflector, and a mounting plate to increase the rigidity of the housing. Additionally, the mounting plate has brackets fixed at either end of the housing for mounting the components of the air unit. Jerry also teaches that a heater, infra-red heater, and light fitting are parallel to each other, and in a common plane.
Thomas teaches a heating system for large buildings, where each burner of the dark radiator units is connected to a common three-phase alternating current connection. The alternating current connection comprises a neutral conductor, and current carrying phases, where the dark radiator units connected to each phase have equal number of burner elements attached to the other phases.
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method of apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Uwe, Brice, Horst, Deng and Akio teach the claimed elements for the ceiling mounted and electrically controlled infrared radiator with multiple reflectors; and Jerry teaches the inclusion of a ceiling light connected to the reflector as part of the heating device, where Thomas teaches the use of three-phase alternating current to power the device, where each phase is connected to the same amount of heating elements as the other phases. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the ceiling light connected to the reflector and three-phase current connection with evenly distributed heating components attached to each phase into the ceiling mounted infrared radiators with multiple heating components and reflectors, and would have understood that the combination would have yielded predictable results because all the references teach heat emitting devices, and all the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ceiling mounted infrared heating radiator taught by Uwe, Brice, Horst, Deng, and Akio, to further include the ceiling light taught by Jerry and the three-phase alternating current distribution taught by Thomas, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uwe, Brice, Horst Deng, Akio, Jerry, and Thomas, in view of Vancak.
Regarding Claim 19, Uwe, Brice, Horst Deng, Akio, Jerry, and Thomas, teach all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except that the infrared radiators form a system of multiple radiators, with fuel lines and electrical cables for supplying the infrared radiator, with a ceiling device for attaching the infrared radiator and for attaching the lines and cables.
Vancak teaches, radiant tube heater assemblies with a plurality of radiant heaters. Vancak also teaches that the gas lines that connect the individual heaters, are housed in beams along with the electrical lines that operate the blower and gas flow regulator of the heater assembly. Vancak further teaches that the radiant heaters are supported by the beams and mounted on the underside of the beams.
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method of apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Uwe, Brice, Horst, Deng, Akio, Jerry, and Thomas teach the ceiling mounted infrared radiator with multiple heating components and reflectors, and Vancak teaches putting the infrared heaters into a system of multiple heaters, where the radiators are mounted to the underside of the beams that also house the fuel lines and electrical cables required for the infrared radiator.
An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated the system of multiple radiators, with beams that both mount the radiators and house the fuel lines and electrical cables for the radiators with the ceiling mounted infrared radiator with multiple individual controlled heating components and associated reflectors, and would have understood that the combination would have yielded predictable results because all the references teach heat emitting devices, and all the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the infrared radiator with multiple independently controlled heating components as taught by Uwe, Brice, Horst, Deng, Akio, Jerry, and Thomas; and incorporate the system comprising multiple radiators mounted to beams that house the necessary lines and cables, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uwe, Brice, Horst Deng, Akio, Jerry, and Thomas, in view of Katsuyoshi and Lars-Henric.
Regarding Claim 20, Uwe, Brice, Horst Deng, Akio, Jerry, and Thomas, teach all of the claimed elements of the current invention as listed above except for a method of operating the infrared radiator where the radiant tube is positioned to absorb radiation energy from the electric heating element through absorption, and the mass inertia of the radiant tube used to equalize the temporal radiation profile of the infrared radiator in the case of pulse width modulation of the electric heating element.
Katsuyoshi, as previously mentioned, teaches an infrared radiation electric heater, where an electric heater is installed inside a metal tube in a parallel direction. Katsuyoshi further teaches that the outer surface of the metal tube is coated in a highly absorbent material, with a low absorbency reflector at a predetermined distance running parallel to the tube. Katsuyoshi further teaches that the simple structure is efficient and energy-saving as the heater absorbs the electrical energy without heating the air unnecessarily.
Lars-Henric, as previously mentioned, teaches a radiation heating device, where an operating controller and power source are connected by line. Lars-Henric further teaches a method for creating and maintaining a desired temperature for different rooms and zones in an efficient manner, where country specific standards and voltages can be implemented into the device. Lars-Henric also teaches that the operating controller delivers different amounts of energy through pulse-width modulation to balance the main voltage supplied to the radiant heating device.
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method of apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Uwe, Brice, Horst, Deng, Akio, Jerry, and Thomas teach the ceiling mounted infrared radiator with multiple heating components and reflectors, and Katsuyoshi teaches positioning the radiant tube to absorb the radiation energy emitted from the electric heating element, and Lars-Henric teaches using pulse width modulation to balance the voltages sent and control the amount of heat emitted by the heating device. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated using the radiant tube to absorb radiant energy from the heating tube and using pulse modulation to balance and control heat output, and would have understood that the combination would have yielded predictable results because all the references teach heat emitting devices, and all the elements are known to ordinarily skilled artisans before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ceiling mounted infrared heater with reflectors over the multiple heating components as taught by Uwe, Brice, Horst, Deng, Akio, Jerry, and Thomas, to incorporate positioning the radiant tube to absorb radiant energy with the tube’s mass as taught by Katsuyoshi, and further use the method of pulse-width modulation to control the voltage and temperature emitted by the heat emitter as taught by Lars-Henric, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Thomas (DE-102009021158-A1) teaches an infrared heater, where a radiation tube has a reflector housing and is supplied with heat by a burner. Thomas (EP-3239616-B1) teaches an infrared heating device, where a plurality of dark infrared emitters can be a radiation tube or electrical resistance heaters. Thomas (US-2010/0260490-A1) teaches a method and configuration for heating buildings using an infrared heating system that contains a radiant tube with a gas furnace at one end.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ned Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights